[redneck]

.

Not very much.



Apocalypse Not: Climate Change Touting Mayors Stay Mum When Selling Bonds

https://www.breitbart.com/economy/20...selling-bonds/

How seriously do America’s big-city mayors take the risk of climate change?

It depends on when you ask them.

On most days, climate change is an “existential threat” requiring federal regulation, international accords, and–of course–a flood tide of federal funds into their city. But if you ask them on a day when their city is selling municipal bonds to investors, the forecast is suddenly much sunnier.

In a new report from the Government Accountability Institute, Peter Schweizer lays bare the climate change apocalypse hypocrisy that has city officials decrying global warming out of one side of their mouth while downplaying it in bond disclosures.

http://www.g-a-i.org/wp-content/uplo...estigation.pdf

READ THE REPORT...

Politicians in many American coastal cities pull no punches about the threats posed by rising sea levels due to climate change. At times they even seem to read from the same script, repeating the phrase “existential threat” to describe the rising sea levels that menace their ports and coastlines.

But when they authorize selling municipal bonds to pay for local development, do they mention any of these risks to investors? Bonds are rated and their coupon interest rates are determined by financial officials in these cities who must disclose all significant risks to the value of the bonds, by law. Do bonds floated by cities at the greatest risks from climate change pay higher interest than bonds from cities at no risk?

Often, the answer is no.

New York City
Boston
Miami
New Orleans
California
Honolulu
Seattle

It is no shock that so many city and state leaders who campaign for office on promises to battle the “existential threat” of sea level rise and climate change quietly change their tune when selling bond issues to pay for new and expanded development. But it is true that these disclosure statements are legally binding while campaign promises are not. That these leaders are careful not to highlight these risks in such legal documents certainly suggests that they do not really believe the problem is as pressing as they claim in their stump speeches.

The clear implication of this is that not only do bond-issuing city and state leaders not credit their own, sometimes dire, rhetoric, but the analysts, underwriters, and institutional buyers discount it as well.
It is business as usual for both sellers and buyers, and the bonds are bought and sold as though the threat of sea level rise and catastrophic flooding caused by runaway climate change were not really a consideration.

The money is still flowing...

And finally...
NSFW